1 Timothy 2:4

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up.τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους …TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS …Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent.As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all menΠαρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Plus another question:)One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.Beata Urbanek> Thanks to all who responded.>> The text again:> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> I have another question.> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >Should the “normal” word order be:> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>> Beata Urbanek>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >< at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>it>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >I>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.>>>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν>> χωρῆσαι>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >to>> make room for repentance.>>>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>fully>> know the truth.>>>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >acknowledge>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>some>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>difference>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> Dear Beata,>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual>> wishes or wants>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides>> together?>>>> thank you>> Shirley Rollinson>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Let me attempt to be a bit more plain regarding the matter of ὅς hOS in this passage and the matter of causality. I would say that there is a certain causality expressed, but it DOES NOT LIE IN THE RELATIVE. The causality lies rather in the manner in which the author has structured the argument. He could have said Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις … ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. [intervening material] PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSEIS … hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN [intervening material]Then he might have come to a full stop to begin againθεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. QEOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.Would there have been any less causality in such ? I don’t think so. It is the sequence of the statements which holds the causality and not the one word ὅς hOS. I would say that the causality as the reason for the offering of prayers is not so much stated as implied.georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Plus another question:)One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.Beata Urbanek> Thanks to all who responded.>> The text again:> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> I have another question.> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >Should the “normal” word order be:> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>> Beata Urbanek>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >< at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>it>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >I>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.>>>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν>> χωρῆσαι>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >to>> make room for repentance.>>>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>fully>> know the truth.>>>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >acknowledge>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>some>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>difference>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> Dear Beata,>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual>> wishes or wants>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides>> together?>>>> thank you>> Shirley Rollinson>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:21 AM, George F Somsel wrote:> Let me attempt to be a bit more plain regarding the matter of ὅς hOS in this > passage and the matter of causality. I would say that there is a certain > causality expressed, but it DOES NOT LIE IN THE RELATIVE. The causality lies > rather in the manner in which the author has structured the argument. He could > have said>> Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις … ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. > [intervening material] > PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSEIS … hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN > [intervening material]>> Then he might have come to a full stop to begin again>> θεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. > QEOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.>> Would there have been any less causality in such ? I don’t think so. It is the > sequence of the statements which holds the causality and not the one word ὅς > hOS. I would say that the causality as the reason for the offering of prayers > is not so much stated as implied.I would agree with George that the causality isn’t implicit in the text, even ifit may have been in the mind of the writer. I’ve said this before — and if I keeprepeating myself, it may turn out to be ad nauseam –: ancient writers, no lessthan modern writers, tend to express themselves more tersely than they areactually thinking; a writer that wanted to be unambiguous could and still cantake the trouble to express him/herself so as not to be misunderstood, buttaking such pains is generally too much of a pain to take, and so we commonlydon’t think twice about making ourselves as clear as perhaps we ought.Carl> ________________________________> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>> Plus another question:)>> One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants > all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.>> Beata Urbanek>>> Thanks to all who responded.>>>> The text again:>> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.>> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>>>> I have another question.>> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >> Should the “normal” word order be:>> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.>> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>>>> Beata Urbanek>>>>>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >> < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>> it>>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >> I>>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want > you>>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that>>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.>>>>>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν>>> χωρῆσαι>>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>>>>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >> to>>> make room for repentance.>>>>>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>> fully>>> know the truth.>>>>>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put > everything>>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the>>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >> acknowledge>>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>>>>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>> some>>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>> difference>>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” > <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>>>>> Dear Beata,>>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual>>> wishes or wants>>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides>>> together?>>>>>> thank you>>> Shirley Rollinson>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>>>>> —>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>>>>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 George wrote,<I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible.>Hi, George,Smyth, Greek Grammar: 2555. Relative Clauses of Cause take the indicative (negative οὐ). ὅς is more common than ὅστις. θαυμαστὸν ποιεῖς, δ̀ς ( = ὅτι σὺ) ““ἡμῖν . . . οὐδὲν δίδως” you do a strange thing in giving us nothing” X. M. 2.7.13, Λοξίᾳ δὲ μέμφομαι, ὅστις μ᾽ ἐπά_ρα_ς ἔργον ἀνοσιώτατον τοῖς μὲν λόγοις ηὔφρα_νε κτλ. I blame Loxias, who after inciting me to a deed most unhallowed, cheered me with words, etc. E. Or. 285. So when the relative is a dependent exclamation (οἷος ῀ ὅτι τοιοῦτος, etc., 2687). a. γε is often added to ὅς or ὅστις. b. μή is used when there is also an idea of characteristic (of such a sort) or condition (perhaps to avoid a harsher form of statement). Cp. 2705 g. But I think we are looking at this all wrong. I don’t think one needs a grammar or grammatical category or even another example to show that there is causal force here. As you said in your post after this one, maybe the causal force lies in the nature of discourse, any discourse, and not in the relative pronoun itself, but it is clearly there. Beata wrote about ὅς<I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.>Hi Beata,This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 9:07:55 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up.τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους …TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS …Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent.As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all menΠαρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Plus another question:)One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.Beata Urbanek> Thanks to all who responded.>> The text again:> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> I have another question.> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >Should the “normal” word order be:> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>> Beata Urbanek>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >< at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>it>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >I>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.>>>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν>> χωρῆσαι>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >to>> make room for repentance.>>>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>fully>> know the truth.>>>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >acknowledge>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>some>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>difference>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> Dear Beata,>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual>> wishes or wants>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides>> together?>>>> thank you>> Shirley Rollinson>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Thank you, George.Maybe it was my oversimplification – quoting my notes and not the actual commentary. It is I.H. Marshall, who says: hOS is used to append theological statements in 4:10; Tit 2:14 (Christ); cf. 1 Tim 3:16 where there is no ancetedent. The effect is causal: ‘because he wishes…’Beata Urbanek —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel To: Beata Urbanek ; BG Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up. τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους … TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS … Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent. As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all men Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus _________ —————————————————————————— From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl> To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Plus another question:) One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun. Beata Urbanek > Thanks to all who responded. > > The text again: > 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. > 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN > > I have another question. > Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? Should the “normal” word order be: > ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους. > hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS > > Beata Urbanek > > > > —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org> > To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM > Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 > > >> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that it >> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, I >> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you >> to do or this is what I want should happen. >> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that >> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself. >> >> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν >> χωρῆσαι >> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI >> >> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all to >> make room for repentance. >> >> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to fully >> know the truth. >> >> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything >> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the >> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and acknowledge >> this truth, they will not be saved. >> >> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that some >> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the difference >> between English “want” and “wish”. >> >> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com> >> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl> >> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org> >> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14 >> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 >> >> >> Dear Beata, >> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual >> wishes or wants >> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides >> together? >> >> thank you >> Shirley Rollinson >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek) >> >> — >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ >> mailing list >> at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> > > — > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ > — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 I scaled down your font. I really dislike oversized fonts.Even in Smyth, it doesn’t appear that he is attributing any expression of causality to the ὅς hOS itself, but seems rather to indicate much the same thing as I said — there is causality expressed (He simply has no reason to state explicitly that it does not lie in the word itself). georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 8:39:41 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5George wrote,<I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible.>Hi, George,Smyth, Greek Grammar: 2555. Relative Clauses of Cause take the indicative (negative οὐ). ὅς is more common than ὅστις. θαυμαστὸνποιεῖς, δ̀ς( = ὅτι σὺ) ““ἡμῖν . . . οὐδὲν δίδως” you do a strange thing in giving us nothing” X. M. 2.7.13, Λοξίᾳ δὲ μέμφομαι, ὅστις μ᾽ ἐπά_ρα_ς ἔργον ἀνοσιώτατον τοῖς μὲν λόγοις ηὔφρα_νε κτλ. I blame Loxias, who after inciting me to a deed most unhallowed, cheered me with words, etc. E. Or. 285. So when the relative is a dependent exclamation (οἷος ῀ ὅτι τοιοῦτος, etc., 2687). a. γε is often added to ὅς or ὅστις. b. μή is used when there is also an idea of characteristic (of such a sort) or condition (perhaps to avoid a harsher form of statement). Cp. 2705 g. But I think we are looking at this all wrong. I don’t think one needs a grammar or grammatical category or even another example to show that there is causal force here. As you said in your post after this one, maybe the causal force lies in the nature of discourse, any discourse, and not in the relative pronoun itself, but it is clearly there. Beata wrote about ὅς<I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.>Hi Beata,This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS ________________________________From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 9:07:55 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up.τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους …TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS …Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent.As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all menΠαρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Plus another question:)One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.Beata Urbanek> Thanks to all who responded.>> The text again:> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> I have another question.> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >Should the “normal” word order be:> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>> Beata Urbanek>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >< at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>it>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >I>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.>>>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν>> χωρῆσαι>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >to>> make room for repentance.>>>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>fully>> know the truth.>>>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >acknowledge>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>some>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>difference>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> Dear Beata,>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual>> wishes or wants>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides>> together?>>>> thank you>> Shirley Rollinson>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Ah, yes. I could agree with that. It is also much the same as the passage to which “Match” referred in Smyth. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 8:42:39 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Thank you, George. Maybe it was my oversimplification – quoting my notes and not the actual commentary. It is I.H. Marshall, who says: hOS is used to append theological statements in 4:10; Tit 2:14 (Christ); cf. 1 Tim 3:16 where there is no ancetedent. The effect is causal: ‘because he wishes…’ Beata Urbanek—– Original Message —– >From: George F Somsel >To: Beata Urbanek ; BG >Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:07 PM>Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > >I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal >meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I >don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck >things up.> >τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, >ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους …>TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS >…> >Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a >causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further >show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the >common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following >clause back to its antecedent.> >As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is >emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my >field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried >finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that >it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable >discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new >information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I >care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond >personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the >chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all men> >Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** >ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS >ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN **>>Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I >somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the >discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal >idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says >regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.> >george>gfsomsel > > >… search for truth, hear truth, >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, >defend the truth till death.> > >– Jan Hus>_________ > > > > > ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AM>Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> >Plus another question:)> >One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants >all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.> >Beata Urbanek> >> Thanks to all who responded.>>>> The text again:>> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.>> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>>>> I have another question.>> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >>Should the “normal” word order be:>> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.>> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>>>> Beata Urbanek>>>>>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >>< at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>>it>>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >>I>>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want >you>>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that>>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.>>>>>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν>>> χωρῆσαι>>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>>>>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >>to>>> make room for repentance.>>>>>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>>fully>>> know the truth.>>>>>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put >everything>>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the>>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >>acknowledge>>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>>>>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>>some>>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>>difference>>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” ><rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>>>>> Dear Beata,>>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual>>> wishes or wants>>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides>>> together?>>>>>> thank you>>> Shirley Rollinson>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>>>>> —>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>>>>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>> >—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Mark, thanks for the grammar reference. I should read more Greek then.Beata Urbanek —– Original Message —– From: Mark Lightman To: George F Somsel ; Beata Urbanek ; BG Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 George wrote, <I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible.> Hi, George, Smyth, Greek Grammar: 2555. Relative Clauses of Cause take the indicative (negative οὐ). ὅς is more common than ὅστις. θαυμαστὸν ποιεῖς, δ̀ς ( = ὅτι σὺ) ““ἡμῖν . . . οὐδὲν δίδως” you do a strange thing in giving us nothing” X. M. 2.7.13, Λοξίᾳ δὲ μέμφομαι, ὅστις μ᾽ ἐπά_ρα_ς ἔργον ἀνοσιώτατον τοῖς μὲν λόγοις ηὔφρα_νε κτλ. I blame Loxias, who after inciting me to a deed most unhallowed, cheered me with words, etc. E. Or. 285. So when the relative is a dependent exclamation (οἷος ῀ ὅτι τοιοῦτος, etc., 2687). a. γε is often added to ὅς or ὅστις. b. μή is used when there is also an idea of characteristic (of such a sort) or condition (perhaps to avoid a harsher form of statement). Cp. 2705 g. But I think we are looking at this all wrong. I don’t think one needs a grammar or grammatical category or even another example to show that there is causal force here. As you said in your post after this one, maybe the causal force lies in the nature of discourse, any discourse, and not in the relative pronoun itself, but it is clearly there. Beata wrote about ὅς <I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.> Hi Beata, This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know. Mark L FWSFOROS MARKOS—————————————————————————— From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 9:07:55 AM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up. τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, ὃς πάντος ἀνθρώπους … TOUTO KALON KAI APODEKTON ENWPION TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU, hOS PANTOS ANQRWPOUS … Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent. As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all men Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus _________ ________________________________ From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl> To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Plus another question:) One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun. Beata Urbanek > Thanks to all who responded. > > The text again: > 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. > 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN > > I have another question. > Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >Should the “normal” word order be: > ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους. > hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS > > Beata Urbanek > > > > —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org> > To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >< at lists.ibiblio.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM > Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 > > >> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>it >> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >I >> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you >> to do or this is what I want should happen. >> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that >> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself. >> >> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν >> χωρῆσαι >> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI >> >> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >to >> make room for repentance. >> >> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>fully >> know the truth. >> >> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything >> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the >> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >acknowledge >> this truth, they will not be saved. >> >> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>some >> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>difference >> between English “want” and “wish”. >> >> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com> >> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl> >> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org> >> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14 >> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 >> >> >> Dear Beata, >> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual >> wishes or wants >> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides >> together? >> >> thank you >> Shirley Rollinson >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek) >> >> — >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ >> mailing list >> at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> > > — > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ > — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 “Match” wrote: “This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.”While there is no inherent meaning in any particular word, there is a conventional meaning. I am reminded of the story of Abraham Lincoln who is supposed to have responded to a question “If we called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have” with the answer that it would still have four since calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. I think you’re getting too cute by half. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Carl,I like your ad nauseam texts.Beata Urbanek—– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>Cc: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:31 PMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:21 AM, George F Somsel wrote:> Let me attempt to be a bit more plain regarding the matter of ὅς hOS in > this> passage and the matter of causality. I would say that there is a certain> causality expressed, but it DOES NOT LIE IN THE RELATIVE. The causality > lies> rather in the manner in which the author has structured the argument. He > could> have said> > Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις … ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων.> [intervening material]> PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSEIS … hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN> [intervening material]> > Then he might have come to a full stop to begin again> > θεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> QEOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.> > Would there have been any less causality in such ? I don’t think so. It > is the> sequence of the statements which holds the causality and not the one word > ὅς> hOS. I would say that the causality as the reason for the offering of > prayers> is not so much stated as implied.I would agree with George that the causality isn’t implicit in the text, even ifit may have been in the mind of the writer. I’ve said this before — and if I keeprepeating myself, it may turn out to be ad nauseam –: ancient writers, no lessthan modern writers, tend to express themselves more tersely than they areactually thinking; a writer that wanted to be unambiguous could and still cantake the trouble to express him/herself so as not to be misunderstood, buttaking such pains is generally too much of a pain to take, and so we commonlydon’t think twice about making ourselves as clear as perhaps we ought.Carl> ________________________________> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 7:19:56 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > Plus another question:)> > One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He > wants> all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.> > Beata Urbanek> >> Thanks to all who responded.>> >> The text again:>> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.>> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> >> I have another question.>> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 >> emphatic?>> Should the “normal” word order be:>> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.>> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>> >> Beata Urbanek>> >> >> >> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG”>> < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>> >> >>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression >>> that>>> it>>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the >>> situation,>> I>>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I >>> want> you>>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of >>> that>>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or >>> herself.>>> >>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς >>> μετάνοιαν>>> χωρῆσαι>>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>> >>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for >>> all>> to>>> make room for repentance.>>> >>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come >>> to>>> fully>>> know the truth.>>> >>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put> everything>>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as >>> the>>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and>> acknowledge>>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>> >>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe >>> that>>> some>>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the>>> difference>>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>> >>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson”> <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>> >>> >>> Dear Beata,>>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an >>> individual>>> wishes or wants>>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council >>> decides>>> together?>>> >>> thank you>>> Shirley Rollinson>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>> >>> —>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>> >> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] NT and Modern Greek [] 1 Timothy 2:4 Webb, My point was that the words PANTES ANQRWPOUS standing alone could be legitimately translated “all kinds of people” regardless of Paul’s intended meaning in 1 Tim. 2:4, and verse 1 may be a good example according to ATR. As you know, Paul progresses from the general to the specific contextually. I might just throw in Acts 10:12 as a better example. Personally, I see no ‘compelling’ reason to abandon BGAD’s classification . Rob Redden

[] NT and Modern Greek[] 1 Timothy 2:4

[] 1 Timothy 2:4 Webb webb at selftest.netFri Nov 3 14:57:09 EST 2006

[] 1 Timothy 2:4 [] Acts 2:16 – Holy Spirit = TOUTO w/no antecedent If it could be legitimately so translated, is there any acknowledged Englishtranslation that so translates it-apart from something produced by and forsectarians? Webb Mealy _____ From: RRedden604 at aol.com [mailto:RRedden604 at aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 11:36 AMTo: webb at selftest.net; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4 Webb, My point was that the words PANTES ANQRWPOUS standing alone could belegitimately translated “all kinds of people” regardless of Paul’s intendedmeaning in 1 Tim. 2:4, and verse 1 may be a good example according to ATR.As you know, Paul progresses from the general to the specific contextually.I might just throw in Acts 10:12 as a better example. Personally, I see no’compelling’ reason to abandon BGAD’s classification . Rob Redden

[] 1 Timothy 2:4 [] 1 Timothy 2:4 — Advisory > MB> I have a question in relation to legitimate translations of ‘pantas’ in 1> 1> Timothy 2:4.> > Is there any justification for translating this as ‘all kinds of’ ?MBThank you all for the responses to my inquiry. The reason I asked thequestion was that I’m seeking information the validity of the claim byatheist writer Richard Carrier, that to so translating the passage is’groundless on the greek’ and other such claims throughout his article:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bible.htmlThis seems to me to be a very grandiose claim given the impact, if true, itwould have for a Reformed reading of the Bible but I don’t have theknowledge of Greek to refute it [I am not a Calvinist].Thanks againMatthew Bell

[] 1 Timothy 2:4 [] Question about How Clement uses the cardinal hEN in”The Instructor” A note of caution here:. We avoid discussion of doctrine — scrupulously — on this list. Believers of all stripes and persuasions and unbelievers as well are welcome to participate in this forum: arguments regarding Biblical Greek texts are to be grounded upon morphological, syntactical, lexicological, etc. principles — not on the faith-commitment or lack of it of the individual proposing or defending an argument. Please let’s avoid reference to any sort of where any sectarian lines lie regarding the interpretation of any text; rather let’s keep the focus on the text itself and what it can reasonably be shown to mean.On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Matt wrote:>> MB>> I have a question in relation to legitimate translations of >> ‘pantas’ in 1>> 1>> Timothy 2:4.>> >> Is there any justification for translating this as ‘all kinds of’ ?> > MB> Thank you all for the responses to my inquiry. The reason I asked the> question was that I’m seeking information the validity of the claim by> atheist writer Richard Carrier, that to so translating the passage is> ‘groundless on the greek’ and other such claims throughout his > article:> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bible.html> > This seems to me to be a very grandiose claim given the impact, if > true, it> would have for a Reformed reading of the Bible but I don’t have the> knowledge of Greek to refute it [I am not a Calvinist].> > Thanks again> Matthew Bell> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu or cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Esdraelon [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Dear ers,the text:4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUSMy questions concerns two words.1. QELW In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base of the meaning of the verbs?Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this distinction. BDAG has a few meanings of QELW:a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, wantb. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, be ready BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4.At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the verbs.What do you think?2. GARIs GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 and 5? Beata Urbanek

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.5 hEIS GAR QEOS, hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN, ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUSFirst, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” And, “Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρfleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AMSubject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Dear ers,the text:4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUSMy questions concerns two words.1. QELW In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base of the meaning of the verbs?Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this distinction. BDAG has a few meanings of QELW:a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, wantb. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, be ready BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4.At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the verbs.What do you think?2. GARIs GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 and 5? Beata Urbanek— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Thanks, George. I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary):”Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” Could you explain it to me, please?Beata Urbanek —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς 4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN. 5 hEIS GAR QEOS, hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN, ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” And, “Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρ fleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus _________ —————————————————————————— From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl> To: at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AM Subject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Dear ers, the text: 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUS My questions concerns two words. 1. QELW In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base of the meaning of the verbs? Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this distinction. BDAG has a few meanings of QELW: a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, be ready BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4. At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the verbs. What do you think? 2. GAR Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 and 5? Beata Urbanek — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ GAR is to explain what has already been stated. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Mon, March 7, 2011 9:11:30 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Thanks, George. I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary):”Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” Could you explain it to me, please?Beata Urbanek—– Original Message —– >From: George F Somsel >To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org >Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:31 PM>Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > >4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας >ἐλθεῖν.>5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, > εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,> ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς>>4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.>5 hEIS GAR QEOS,> hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN,> ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS>>First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar >of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of >the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR >is both coordinating and subordinating that > >>“Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core >constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” > >>And, > >“Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρfleshes >out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background >information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action >or state.”>>>Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG >indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI >not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — >particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is >indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a >plan is executed.> > george>gfsomsel > > >… search for truth, hear truth, >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, >defend the truth till death.> > >– Jan Hus>_________ > > > > > ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>To: at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AM>Subject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> >Dear ers,> >the text:>4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN >5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUS> >My questions concerns two words.>1. QELW >In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW >and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply wants >all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s a >wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base >of the meaning of the verbs?>Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former >seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will >which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this distinction. > >BDAG has a few meanings of QELW:>a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want>b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, >be ready > >BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4.>At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the >verbs.> >What do you think?> >2. GAR>Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is the >more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 and >5? > > >Beata Urbanek>—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Thank you, George.Beata Urbanek —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ GAR is to explain what has already been stated. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus _________ —————————————————————————— From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 9:11:30 AM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Thanks, George. I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary): “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” Could you explain it to me, please? Beata Urbanek —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς 4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN. 5 hEIS GAR QEOS, hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN, ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” And, “Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρ fleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus _________ —————————————————————————- From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl> To: at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AM Subject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Dear ers, the text: 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUS My questions concerns two words. 1. QELW In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base of the meaning of the verbs? Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this distinction. BDAG has a few meanings of QELW: a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, be ready BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4. At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the verbs. What do you think? 2. GAR Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 and 5? Beata Urbanek — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Could I therefore say that GAR connects the two sentences very closely? That we cannot really divide them? Or the connection is quite loose?I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.Beata Urbanek—– Original Message —– From: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:56 PMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> Thank you, George.> > Beata Urbanek> —– Original Message —– > From: George F Somsel> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:39 PM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > > It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ > GAR is to explain what has already been stated.> > george> gfsomsel> > > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > > ——————————————————————————> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 9:11:30 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> >> Thanks, George.> > I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of > English-Polish dictionary):> “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the > core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”> Could you explain it to me, please?> > Beata Urbanek> —– Original Message —– > From: George F Somsel> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:31 PM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > > 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν > ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός,> εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,> ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς> > 4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.> 5 hEIS GAR QEOS,> hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN,> ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS> > First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse > Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard > to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young > indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that> > “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the > core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”> > And,> > “Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρ > fleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of > background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some > preceding action or state.”> > > Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the > difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire > while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not > sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. > Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is > then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed.> > > george> gfsomsel> > > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > > —————————————————————————-> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AM> Subject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > Dear ers,> > the text:> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS > ELQEIN> 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS > IHSOUS> > My questions concerns two words.> 1. QELW> In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction > between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, > that He simply wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In > other words that it’s a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. > Can we say that on tha base of the meaning of the verbs?> Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, > the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the > latter the will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse > of this distinction.> BDAG has a few meanings of QELW:> a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want> b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, > wish, want, be ready> BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4.> At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between > the verbs.> > What do you think?> > 2. GAR> Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This > is the more important question to me. What is the connection between the > verses 4 and 5?> > Beata Urbanek> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 On Mar 8, 2011, at 5:18 AM, Beata Urbanek wrote:> Could I therefore say that GAR connects the two sentences very closely? That we cannot really divide them? Or the connection is quite loose?I think you’re asking too much. Is it a slip knot or a hangman’s knot? I don’t think you can say anything more than that GAR indicates that statement B comments on statement A.> I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved. I haven’t done a study on this — perhaps somebody has, but I don’t know of it — but my sense is that earlier Greek tended to use QELW or EQELW of consent or willingness to do something or for something to be done, while BOULOMAI was used rather for positive intent to do something or have something done. I note that LSJ says, ” … to be willing (of consent rather than desire, v. βούλομαι 1), but also generally, wish … ” I’m inclined to think that the two verbs are more or less synonymous and that QELW is the more common in everyday colloquial discourse. I note that QELW is found 208x in the GNT, 153x in the LXX, while BOULOMAI is found 37 times in the GNT, 121 times in the LXX. It might be worth a further investigation, but I don’t see much basis to differentiate the sense of the two verbs very sharply.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> —– Original Message —– From: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:56 PM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> Thank you, George.>>>> Beata Urbanek>> —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel>> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:39 PM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ GAR is to explain what has already been stated.>>>> george>> gfsomsel>> ——————————————————————————>> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 9:11:30 AM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> Thanks, George.>>>> I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary):>> “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”>> Could you explain it to me, please?>>>> Beata Urbanek>> —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel>> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:31 PM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.>> 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός,>> εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,>> ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς>>>> 4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.>> 5 hEIS GAR QEOS,>> hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN,>> ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS>>>> First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that>>>> “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”>>>> And,>>>> “Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρ fleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.”>>>>>> Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed.>>>>>> george>> gfsomsel>>>>>>>> … search for truth, hear truth,>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,>> defend the truth till death.>>>>>>>> – Jan Hus>> _________>>>>>>>>>>>> —————————————————————————->> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AM>> Subject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> Dear ers,>>>> the text:>> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUS>>>> My questions concerns two words.>> 1. QELW>> In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base of the meaning of the verbs?>> Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this distinction.>> BDAG has a few meanings of QELW:>> a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want>> b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, be ready>> BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4.>> At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the verbs.>>>> What do you think?>>>> 2. GAR>> Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 and 5?>>>> Beata Urbanek/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Beata wrote<I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.>Hi, Beata,How about some thoughts from Euripides:Alcestis is about to die in place of her husband. Before she dies, she wants to tell him what she wants, the main thing being that she does not want her husband to get remarried (“the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables!”) This is how she puts it:λέξαι θέλω σοι πρὶν θανεῖν ἃ βούλομαι. (LEXAI QELW SOI PRIN QANEIN hA BOULOMAI)”Before I die, I want to tell you what I want.”She has resolved with her will (BOULOMAI) that her kids would be better off without a step-mother, but it is her heart’s wish (QELW) that a woman be really heard by her husband, if only once, if only here. Mark LΦωσφοροςFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, March 8, 2011 3:18:21 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Could I therefore say that GAR connects the two sentences very closely? That we cannot really divide them? Or the connection is quite loose?I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.Beata Urbanek—– Original Message —– From: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:56 PMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> Thank you, George.>> Beata Urbanek> —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:39 PM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>> It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ GAR >is to explain what has already been stated.>> george> gfsomsel>>>> … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.>>>> – Jan Hus> _________>>>>>> ——————————————————————————> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 9:11:30 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>> Thanks, George.>> I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish >dictionary):> “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core >constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”> Could you explain it to me, please?>> Beata Urbanek> —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:31 PM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>> 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας >ἐλθεῖν.> 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός,> εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,> ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς>> 4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.> 5 hEIS GAR QEOS,> hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN,> ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS>> First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse >Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to >some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that >γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that>> “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core >constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”>> And,>> “Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρ >fleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background >information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action >or state.”>>> Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference >BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι >BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree >with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that >what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to >say, a plan is executed.>>> george> gfsomsel>>>> … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.>>>> – Jan Hus> _________>>>>>> —————————————————————————-> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AM> Subject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>> Dear ers,>> the text:> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN> 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUS>> My questions concerns two words.> 1. QELW> In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between >QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply >wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s >a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base >of the meaning of the verbs?> Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the >former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the >will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this >distinction.> BDAG has a few meanings of QELW:> a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want> b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, >want, be ready> BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4.> At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the >verbs.>> What do you think?>> 2. GAR> Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is >the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 >and 5?>> Beata Urbanek> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:13 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:> Beata wrote>> <I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.>>> Hi, Beata,>> How about some thoughts from Euripides:>> Alcestis is about to die in place of her husband. Before she dies, she wants to > tell him what she wants, the main thing being that she does not want her husband > to get remarried (“the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage > tables!”) This is how she puts it:>> λέξαι θέλω σοι πρὶν θανεῖν ἃ βούλομαι. (LEXAI QELW SOI PRIN > QANEIN hA BOULOMAI)>> “Before I die, I want to tell you what I want.”>> She has resolved with her will (BOULOMAI) that her kids would be better off > without a step-mother, but it is her heart’s wish (QELW) that a woman be really > heard by her husband, if only once, if only here.Mark, I just can’t see how you’re getting that sense from this text; you’re talking about matters that are altogether out of the scope of this statement, which wouldseem to be saying no more than, “I want to tell you what’s on my mind.” I thinkwe might very well argue that “what’s on my mind” (hA BOULOMAI) is whatshe intends to accomplish by doing what she’s about to do (i.e. die in place of her husband Admetus). But the complement of QELW is nothing more than LEXAI — “make a statement.”It seems to me that Euripides’ usage of LEXAI QELW here does not differsignificantly from the Pauline expression, OU QELW hUMAS AGNOEIN,ADELFOI (Rom. 1:13,. 11:25 1Cor. 10:1, 12:1 2Cor. 1:8, 1Th. 4:13)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> ________________________________> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; > at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 3:18:21 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>> Could I therefore say that GAR connects the two sentences very closely? That we > cannot really divide them? Or the connection is quite loose?>> I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.>> Beata Urbanek>> —– Original Message —– From: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> To: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:56 PM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> Thank you, George.>>>> Beata Urbanek>> —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel>> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:39 PM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> It means that Robertson was correct when saying that the main use of γάρ GAR >> is to explain what has already been stated.>>>> george>> gfsomsel>>>>>>>> … search for truth, hear truth,>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,>> defend the truth till death.>>>>>>>> – Jan Hus>> _________>>>>>>>>>>>> ——————————————————————————>> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 9:11:30 AM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> Thanks, George.>>>> I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish >> dictionary):>> “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core >> constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”>> Could you explain it to me, please?>>>> Beata Urbanek>> —– Original Message —– From: George F Somsel>> To: Beata Urbanek ; at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:31 PM>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρωπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας >> ἐλθεῖν.>> 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός,>> εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,>> ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς>>>> 4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.>> 5 hEIS GAR QEOS,>> hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN,>> ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS>>>> First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse >> Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to >> some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that >> γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that>>>> “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core >> constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”>>>> And,>>>> “Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρ >> fleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background >> information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action >> or state.”>>>>>> Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference >> BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι >> BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree >> with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that >> what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to >> say, a plan is executed.>>>>>> george>> gfsomsel>>>>>>>> … search for truth, hear truth,>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,>> defend the truth till death.>>>>>>>> – Jan Hus>> _________>>>>>>>>>>>> —————————————————————————->> From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 2:35:51 AM>> Subject: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> Dear ers,>>>> the text:>> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUS>>>> My questions concerns two words.>> 1. QELW>> In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between >> QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply >> wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s >> a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base >> of the meaning of the verbs?>> Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the >> former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the >> will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this >> distinction.>> BDAG has a few meanings of QELW:>> a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want>> b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, >> want, be ready>> BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4.>> At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the >> verbs.>>>> What do you think?>>>> 2. GAR>> Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is >> the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 >> and 5?>>>> Beata Urbanek

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] Middle voice and subject-affectedness Hi Carl,On a slightly unrelated note, do you think that, in this passage from Euripides, for example, BOULOMAI is more “subject intensive” than QELW? How would you falsify that? Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>Cc: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, March 8, 2011 5:32:42 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5On Mar 8, 2011, at 7:13 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:> Beata wrote>> <I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.>>> Hi, Beata,>> How about some thoughts from Euripides:>> Alcestis is about to die in place of her husband. Before she dies, she wants >to > > tell him what she wants, the main thing being that she does not want her >husband > > to get remarried (“the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the >marriage > > tables!”) This is how she puts it:>> λέξαι θέλω σοι πρὶν θανεῖν ἃ βούλομαι. (LEXAI QELW SOI PRIN > QANEIN hA BOULOMAI)>> “Before I die, I want to tell you what I want.”>> She has resolved with her will (BOULOMAI) that her kids would be better off > without a step-mother, but it is her heart’s wish (QELW) that a woman be really > > heard by her husband, if only once, if only here.Mark, I just can’t see how you’re getting that sense from this text; you’re talking about matters that are altogether out of the scope of this statement, which wouldseem to be saying no more than, “I want to tell you what’s on my mind.” I thinkwe might very well argue that “what’s on my mind” (hA BOULOMAI) is whatshe intends to accomplish by doing what she’s about to do (i.e. die in place of her husband Admetus). But the complement of QELW is nothing more than LEXAI — “make a statement.”It seems to me that Euripides’ usage of LEXAI QELW here does not differsignificantly from the Pauline expression, OU QELW hUMAS AGNOEIN,ADELFOI (Rom. 1:13,. 11:25 1Cor. 10:1, 12:1 2Cor. 1:8, 1Th. 4:13)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 If I recall correctly, you were citing Thayer. I WOULD NOT RELY on Thayer. The problem with Thayer is that he wrote before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus papyri and the writings of Deissman and Moulton and Milligan. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>Cc: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, March 8, 2011 4:24:22 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> I’d appreciate thoughts about QELW from other people as well.Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)Thanks for your answer. Actually, I don’t expect or wish any diffrence in meaning or the other way round. I just wanted to know if the statement I’ve quoted was valid. And now I think that not quite.Beata Urbanek>> 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός,>> εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,>> ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς>>>> 4 hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNWSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN.>> 5 hEIS GAR QEOS,>> hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN,>> ANQRWPOS XRISTOS IHSOUS>>

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 It is evident from the use of GAR in 1 Tim. 2:5 that THELO is used in v. 4 with the sense of purpose. That is to say: God will have all to be saved because there is one God and one mediator, Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.Sam Cripps (layman)

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that itusually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, Ihave come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want youto do or this is what I want should happen.If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of thatconsultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιανχωρῆσαιMH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI(God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all tomake room for repentance.In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to fullyknow the truth.But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everythingin place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as themediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and acknowledgethis truth, they will not be saved.Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that somedistinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the differencebetween English “want” and “wish”.—– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Dear Beata,Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individualwishes or wantsand that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decidestogether?thank youShirley Rollinson+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Thanks to all who responded.The text again:4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEINI have another question.Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? Should the “normal” word order be:ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUSBeata Urbanek—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression > that it> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the > situation, I> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want > you> to do or this is what I want should happen.> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of > that> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or > herself.> > In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς > μετάνοιαν> χωρῆσαι> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI> > (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for > all to> make room for repentance.> > In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to > fully> know the truth.> > But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put > everything> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as > the> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and > acknowledge> this truth, they will not be saved.> > Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe > that some> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the > difference> between English “want” and “wish”.> > —– Original Message —– > From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > > Dear Beata,> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual> wishes or wants> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides> together?> > thank you> Shirley Rollinson> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Plus another question:)One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.Beata Urbanek> Thanks to all who responded.> > The text again:> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN> > I have another question.> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? > Should the “normal” word order be:> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS> > Beata Urbanek> > > > —– Original Message —– > From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” > < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5> > >> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression >> that it>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the >> situation, I>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I >> want you>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of >> that>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or >> herself.>> >> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς >> μετάνοιαν>> χωρῆσαι>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>> >> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for >> all to>> make room for repentance.>> >> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come >> to fully>> know the truth.>> >> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put >> everything>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as >> the>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >> acknowledge>> this truth, they will not be saved.>> >> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe >> that some>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >> difference>> between English “want” and “wish”.>> >> —– Original Message —– >> From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>> >> >> Dear Beata,>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an >> individual>> wishes or wants>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council >> decides>> together?>> >> thank you>> Shirley Rollinson>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5 Hi, Beata,Any relative clause can have causal force if that’s what the context demands.Paul could have used here a participle θελοντος (QELONTOS,) which would have had a causal force. Instead of a subordinate clause, he could have started a new sentence and used GAR, which would have had a causal force. The relative clause was such another option to keep the style various. Mark LΦωσφοροςFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>To: Beata Urbanek <beata.urbanek at op.pl>; BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 8:19:56 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5Plus another question:)One of the commentators says that hOS has a causal meaning: “because He wants all people to be saved”. I cannot find such meaning of this pronoun.Beata Urbanek> Thanks to all who responded.>> The text again:> 4. ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.> 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN>> I have another question.> Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? >Should the “normal” word order be:> ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους.> hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS>> Beata Urbanek>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>> To: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>; “BG” >< at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:17 AM> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>> After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that >>it>> usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, >I>> have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you>> to do or this is what I want should happen.>> If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that>> consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.>>>> In 2 Pet 3:9 we read: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν>> χωρῆσαι>> MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI>>>> (God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all >to>> make room for repentance.>>>> In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to >>fully>> know the truth.>>>> But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything>> in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the>> mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and >acknowledge>> this truth, they will not be saved.>>>> Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that >>some>> distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the >>difference>> between English “want” and “wish”.>>>> —– Original Message —– From: “Shirley Rollinson” <rollinsondr at yahoo.com>>> To: <beata.urbanek at op.pl>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 9. marts 2011 02:14>> Subject: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:4-5>>>>>> Dear Beata,>> Could it be that THELW qelw relates to THELHMA qelhma – what an individual>> wishes or wants>> and that BOULOMAI boulomai relates to BOULH boulh – what a council decides>> together?>>>> thank you>> Shirley Rollinson>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>>> 9. Re: 1 Timothy 2:4-5 (Beata Urbanek)>>>> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>>>> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

My questions concerns two words. 1. QELW In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that it’s God’s wish, that He simply wants all the people to have all they need to be saved. In other words that it’s a wish off his heart and not a decision of his will. Can we say that on tha base of the meaning of the verbs? Thayer says: “As respects the distinction between βούλομαι and θέλω, the former seems to designate the will which follows deliberation, the latter the will which proceeds from inclination”. There is also a reverse of this distinction. BDAG has a few meanings of QELW: a. to have a desire for something, wish to have, desire, want b. to have someth. in mind for oneself, of purpose, resolve, will, wish, want, be ready BDAG doesn’t refer to 1 Tim 2:4. At BOULOMAI BDAG cites BDF – there is no difference in meaning between the verbs.

What do you think?

2. GAR Is GAR here explicative (as BDAG suggests) or it gives the reason? This is the more important question to me. What is the connection between the verses 4 and 5?

First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that

“Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”

And,

“Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρfleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed.

I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary): “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” Could you explain it to me, please?

I think you’re asking too much. Is it a slip knot or a hangman’s knot? I don’t think you can say anything more than that GAR indicates that statement B comments on statement A.

Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved. I haven’t done a study on this — perhaps somebody has, but I don’t know of it — but my sense is that earlier Greek tended to use QELW or EQELW of consent or willingness to do something or for something to be done, while BOULOMAI was used rather for positive intent to do something or have something done. I note that LSJ says, ” … to be willing (of consent rather than desire, v. βούλομαι 1), but also generally, wish … ”

I’m inclined to think that the two verbs are more or less synonymous and that QELW is the more common in everyday colloquial discourse. I note that QELW is found 208x in the GNT, 153x in the LXX, while BOULOMAI is found 37 times in the GNT, 121 times in the LXX. It might be worth a further investigation, but I don’t see much basis to differentiate the sense of the two verbs very sharply.

Alcestis is about to die in place of her husband. Before she dies, she wants to tell him what she wants, the main thing being that she does not want her husband to get remarried (“the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables!”) This is how she puts it:

She has resolved with her will (BOULOMAI) that her kids would be better off without a step-mother, but it is her heart’s wish (QELW) that a woman be really heard by her husband, if only once, if only here.

Mark, I just can’t see how you’re getting that sense from this text; you’re talking about matters that are altogether out of the scope of this statement, which would seem to be saying no more than, “I want to tell you what’s on my mind.” I think we might very well argue that “what’s on my mind” (hA BOULOMAI) is what she intends to accomplish by doing what she’s about to do (i.e. die in place of her husband Admetus). But the complement of QELW is nothing more than LEXAI — “make a statement.”

If I recall correctly, you were citing Thayer. I WOULD NOT RELY on Thayer. The problem with Thayer is that he wrote before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus papyri and the writings of Deissman and Moulton and Milligan.

It is evident from the use of GAR in 1 Tim. 2:5 that THELO is used in v. 4 with the sense of purpose. That is to say: God will have all to be saved because there is one God and one mediator, Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that it usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, I have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you to do or this is what I want should happen. If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.

(God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all to make room for repentance.

In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to fully know the truth.

But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and acknowledge this truth, they will not be saved.

Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that some distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the difference between English “want” and “wish”.

I have another question. Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? Should the “normal” word order be: ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους. hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS

Any relative clause can have causal force if that’s what the context demands.

Paul could have used here a participle θελοντος (QELONTOS,) which would have had a causal force. Instead of a subordinate clause, he could have started a new sentence and used GAR, which would have had a causal force. The relative clause was such another option to keep the style various.

I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up.

Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent.

As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all men

Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.

Let me attempt to be a bit more plain regarding the matter of ὅς hOS in this passage and the matter of causality. I would say that there is a certain causality expressed, but it DOES NOT LIE IN THE RELATIVE. The causality lies rather in the manner in which the author has structured the argument. He could have said

Would there have been any less causality in such ? I don’t think so. It is the sequence of the statements which holds the causality and not the one word ὅς hOS. I would say that the causality as the reason for the offering of prayers is not so much stated as implied.

I would agree with George that the causality isn’t implicit in the text, even if it may have been in the mind of the writer. I’ve said this before — and if I keep repeating myself, it may turn out to be ad nauseam –: ancient writers, no less than modern writers, tend to express themselves more tersely than they are actually thinking; a writer that wanted to be unambiguous could and still can take the trouble to express him/herself so as not to be misunderstood, but taking such pains is generally too much of a pain to take, and so we commonly don’t think twice about making ourselves as clear as perhaps we ought.

a. γε is often added to ὅς or ὅστις. b. μή is used when there is also an idea of characteristic (of such a sort) or condition (perhaps to avoid a harsher form of statement). Cp. 2705 g.

But I think we are looking at this all wrong. I don’t think one needs a grammar or grammatical category or even another example to show that there is causal force here. As you said in your post after this one, maybe the causal force lies in the nature of discourse, any discourse, and not in the relative pronoun itself, but it is clearly there.

Beata wrote about ὅς

Hi Beata,

This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.

Maybe it was my oversimplification – quoting my notes and not the actual commentary. It is I.H. Marshall, who says: hOS is used to append theological statements in 4:10; Tit 2:14 (Christ); cf. 1 Tim 3:16 where there is no ancetedent. The effect is causal: ‘because he wishes…’

Even in Smyth, it doesn’t appear that he is attributing any expression of causality to the ὅς hOS itself, but seems rather to indicate much the same thing as I said — there is causality expressed (He simply has no reason to state explicitly that it does not lie in the word itself).

“This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t

“find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.”

While there is no inherent meaning in any particular word, there is a conventional meaning. I am reminded of the story of Abraham Lincoln who is supposed to have responded to a question “If we called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have” with the answer that it would still have four since calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. I think you’re getting too cute by half.

First, let us dispose of γάρ GAR. I’ve found Steve Runge’s _Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament_ to be helpful particularly with regard to some of the conjunctions. He notes that while Wallace and Young indicate that γάρ GAR is both coordinating and subordinating that

“Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.”

And,

“Where it occurs in narrative proper, the proposition introduced by γάρfleshes out some aspect of what precedes. It may be in the form of background information; it may introduce the reason or rationale for some preceding action or state.” Regarding βούλομαι BOULOMAI and θέλω QELW, it seems that the difference BDAG indicates is that θέλω QELW indicates a wish or desire while βούλομαι BOULOMAI not only indicates a desire but a plan. I am not sure that I agree with this — particularly with regard to this passage. Here it would seem that what is indicated is precisely that God’s wish is then carried out — that is to say, a plan is executed.

I’m not sure I understand this sentence (even with the help of English-Polish dictionary): “Robertson’s ‘explanatory’ assertion has largely been confirmed as the core constraint of γάρ in modern linguistic treatements.” Could you explain it to me, please?

I think you’re asking too much. Is it a slip knot or a hangman’s knot? I don’t think you can say anything more than that GAR indicates that statement B comments on statement A.

Here too I think you’re asking for more of a disambiguation between QELW and BOULOMAI than is to be readily achieved. I haven’t done a study on this — perhaps somebody has, but I don’t know of it — but my sense is that earlier Greek tended to use QELW or EQELW of consent or willingness to do something or for something to be done, while BOULOMAI was used rather for positive intent to do something or have something done. I note that LSJ says, ” … to be willing (of consent rather than desire, v. βούλομαι 1), but also generally, wish … ”

I’m inclined to think that the two verbs are more or less synonymous and that QELW is the more common in everyday colloquial discourse. I note that QELW is found 208x in the GNT, 153x in the LXX, while BOULOMAI is found 37 times in the GNT, 121 times in the LXX. It might be worth a further investigation, but I don’t see much basis to differentiate the sense of the two verbs very sharply.

Alcestis is about to die in place of her husband. Before she dies, she wants to tell him what she wants, the main thing being that she does not want her husband to get remarried (“the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables!”) This is how she puts it:

She has resolved with her will (BOULOMAI) that her kids would be better off without a step-mother, but it is her heart’s wish (QELW) that a woman be really heard by her husband, if only once, if only here.

Mark, I just can’t see how you’re getting that sense from this text; you’re talking about matters that are altogether out of the scope of this statement, which would seem to be saying no more than, “I want to tell you what’s on my mind.” I think we might very well argue that “what’s on my mind” (hA BOULOMAI) is what she intends to accomplish by doing what she’s about to do (i.e. die in place of her husband Admetus). But the complement of QELW is nothing more than LEXAI — “make a statement.”

If I recall correctly, you were citing Thayer. I WOULD NOT RELY on Thayer. The problem with Thayer is that he wrote before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus papyri and the writings of Deissman and Moulton and Milligan.

It is evident from the use of GAR in 1 Tim. 2:5 that THELO is used in v. 4 with the sense of purpose. That is to say: God will have all to be saved because there is one God and one mediator, Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

After having looked at all the BOULOMAIs in the NT, I get the impression that it usually refers to the following scenario: I have thought about the situation, I have come to a decision or made a plan, and therefore: this is what I want you to do or this is what I want should happen. If more than one person is involved, the decision would be a result of that consultation, but in most cases the person consults within him- or herself.

(God) is not planning (does not want) for anyone to be destroyed but for all to make room for repentance.

In 1 Tim 2:4 God would wish (QELEI) for all people to be saved and come to fully know the truth.

But he also knows that this will not happen, even though he has put everything in place for it to happen as v. 5 explains: He has sent Jesus Christ as the mediator, but there is only one God. If people will not believe and acknowledge this truth, they will not be saved.

Although there is considerable overlap between the words, I do believe that some distinction is present. It is akin to, but not quite the same as, the difference between English “want” and “wish”.

I have another question. Is the position of πάντας ἀνθρώπους at the beginning of the v. 4 emphatic? Should the “normal” word order be: ὃς θέλει σωθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους. hOS QELEI SWQHNAI PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS

Any relative clause can have causal force if that’s what the context demands.

Paul could have used here a participle θελοντος (QELONTOS,) which would have had a causal force. Instead of a subordinate clause, he could have started a new sentence and used GAR, which would have had a causal force. The relative clause was such another option to keep the style various.

I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t think is possible. Note the sentence without the verse number to muck things up.

Unless your unnamed commentator can find some proof of the use of ὅς hOS in a causative sense (which I seriously doubt he will be able) and can then further show that the use here fits his scheme, it appears that the usage here is the common, ordinary, everyday, meat-and-potatos relative which ties the following clause back to its antecedent.

As regards whether the position of πάντος ἀνθρώπους PANTOS ANQRWPOUS is emphatic, I would say that may be the case, but discourse linguistics is not my field. I think Steve Runge would be better able to answer that. I tried finding some answer in his book, but it would appear that he doesn’t feel that it is such an easy question to answer so that it requires some considerable discussion. He speaks of the normal information flow and old information / new information which whole matter would take a bit more time to wade through than I care to spend to answer one question so that it is better for him to respond personally. I would note, however that, going back to the beginning of the chapter, the discussion was concerning praying for all men

Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ** ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ** PARAKALW OUN PRWTON PANTWN POIEISQAI DEHSIS PROSEUXAS ENTEUCEIS EUXARISTIAS ** hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN ** Thus, while it may be the case that there is some prominence in its position, I somewhat doubt that since it is not any new information and simply resumes the discussion of prayer for all men on the basis of (hmm–am I introducing a causal idea ?) the fact that God wishes all men to be saved. Whatever Steve says regarding this, listen to him since that’s his specialty.

Let me attempt to be a bit more plain regarding the matter of ὅς hOS in this passage and the matter of causality. I would say that there is a certain causality expressed, but it DOES NOT LIE IN THE RELATIVE. The causality lies rather in the manner in which the author has structured the argument. He could have said

Would there have been any less causality in such ? I don’t think so. It is the sequence of the statements which holds the causality and not the one word ὅς hOS. I would say that the causality as the reason for the offering of prayers is not so much stated as implied.

I would agree with George that the causality isn’t implicit in the text, even if it may have been in the mind of the writer. I’ve said this before — and if I keep repeating myself, it may turn out to be ad nauseam –: ancient writers, no less than modern writers, tend to express themselves more tersely than they are actually thinking; a writer that wanted to be unambiguous could and still can take the trouble to express him/herself so as not to be misunderstood, but taking such pains is generally too much of a pain to take, and so we commonly don’t think twice about making ourselves as clear as perhaps we ought.

a. γε is often added to ὅς or ὅστις. b. μή is used when there is also an idea of characteristic (of such a sort) or condition (perhaps to avoid a harsher form of statement). Cp. 2705 g.

But I think we are looking at this all wrong. I don’t think one needs a grammar or grammatical category or even another example to show that there is causal force here. As you said in your post after this one, maybe the causal force lies in the nature of discourse, any discourse, and not in the relative pronoun itself, but it is clearly there.

Beata wrote about ὅς

Hi Beata,

This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t “find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.

Maybe it was my oversimplification – quoting my notes and not the actual commentary. It is I.H. Marshall, who says: hOS is used to append theological statements in 4:10; Tit 2:14 (Christ); cf. 1 Tim 3:16 where there is no ancetedent. The effect is causal: ‘because he wishes…’

Even in Smyth, it doesn’t appear that he is attributing any expression of causality to the ὅς hOS itself, but seems rather to indicate much the same thing as I said — there is causality expressed (He simply has no reason to state explicitly that it does not lie in the word itself).

“This is also wrong. Words don’t have meanings. Meanings use words. You don’t

“find” the meaning of a Greek word by looking in a dictionary or grammar. You learn to read Greek and the meaning is there. This is my own ultra nauseam, I know.”

While there is no inherent meaning in any particular word, there is a conventional meaning. I am reminded of the story of Abraham Lincoln who is supposed to have responded to a question “If we called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have” with the answer that it would still have four since calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. I think you’re getting too cute by half.